Let me try to summarize.

The elimination of racism requires only that racists cease to engage in racist behavior. Tell me, what about paying redheads less than brownheads for the same work? Assume that the redheads have signed a contract. Racism such as this has led to all sorts of social problems all over the world. Will NAP somehow prevent that?

Also, any uninvolved person or entity may act violently in order to prevent or eliminate any violations of the NAP, even where he himself is neither the perpetrator nor the victim, nor even related or known to the victim.  He must, however, hope that the perpetrator's defense agency will view his acts as honorable and choose to uphold the NAP and publicly act against the interests of its client.

You do not refute my claim that it would be cheaper for all drivers to collectively not buy insurance. Therefore, it is now economically rational for a society to not have insurance, both at the group and individual levels. Even worse, you'll also have to pay an additional premium for those cases in which you are the victim of an unsolved hit-n-run.

Now, any individual is entitled to defend themselves against perceived threats; but must consider the possibility that no threat was intended and that he himself is the initial agressor and so be judged a NAP violator despite his best pro-NAP intentions.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that you're probably from the U.S.A. where people have been conditioned to think they have a God-given right to bear any arbitrary arms.  Can you see that your opinion (that people can carry AARs) is geographically influenced?  For example, I come from a country where even the police do not carry firearms.

Other crucial questions that you missed were:
1. Does the elimination of slavery then rely on the kindness of strangers?
2. Is [shady repair man] obliged to carry out checks before [repairing cars] or is he free to conduct his business as he wishes? Are the victims of hit-n-runs entitled to engage in violence against him on the possibility that one of his clients is a hit-n-runner?
3. A bonus question: were you here for the raindrop-triggered-nuclear-weapons discussion?

I'm trying to find the time to read UPB; but I think I can already tell when my opinion will differ from the author's - I'm pretty sure that soon he will imply that, once regulations and majority-endorsed government violence is removed, people will suddenly, magically, start being nice to one another.

I give up. I too am guilty of off-topic posting. I would point out just that there has been no clear reason given, for what is so special about the NAP.  It seems to be based on vague feelings, beliefs, and opinions on "Natural Law" and what constitutes "right" and "wrong" behavior.

Please CLEARLY define "reasonable" in this context, in such a way as it is clear to EVERYONE when there is, or is not, a threat - let's be honest, we're talking about mortal threats here, it would be a terrible thing if someone got it wrong and two NAPsters ended up, you know, killing each other over a misunderstanding.

When you have done that, please explain how that is not like a "law", and why what *you* think should trump what *I* think (I happen to think my perception is perfectly reasonable).


Ok.  Here is an argument.  Natural law would suggest there is no such thing as private property, save what you can actually carry on your back and actively defend.  Think about it - humans are the only species with such extensive property rights. All other animals must individually defend their property, be that a fresh kill, or a nest.  Therefore, I reject private property.  If I find your Ferrari undefended, I may claim it.  Your opinion is different, but that is of no consequence.

Ahhhhhhhhh I get it. I think you are suggesting that, in order to eliminate racism, all racist people must suddenly stop acting racist. Now I understand why I never got it until now.

So any random person can engage in violence against the pimp?  I understood that violence was only justified as self-defense under the NAP. But please answer clearly - you already stated there is no economic argument for eliminating slavery in NAP land. Does the elimination of slavery then rely on the kindness of strangers?  See how you answered; you seem to be contradicting yourself:

• fergalish: "until some kind stranger decides to eliminate slavery, a NAP society will tolerate it insofar as it will not be actively eliminated, true or false?"
• myrkul: "false. Any person can take it upon themselves to eliminate any instance of slavery at any time."

But now, are you suggesting that any person can take violent action to eliminate (or perhaps even prevent?) any perceived violation of NAP, even if they themselves are not the victim?

I must indeed be underestimating shady repair man's risks. What are they? He is merely fixing someone's car. Is he obliged to carry out checks before doing so or is he free to conduct his business as he wishes? Are the victims of hit-n-runs entitled to engage in violence against him on the possibility that one of his clients is a hit-n-runner?
On average, the sum of the premiums is at least equal to the sum of the damages and compensations.  Therefore it would be cheaper for all drivers to collectively not pay insurance and fund all damages and compensation claims from their own pockets, simply because then they're not paying the insurance company's internal costs and profits.  In case the driver has no insurance, which insurance company pays?

Are you suggesting that people will need to travel armed like that under NAP?  I hope not.  But in any case, I might have a very good aim with poisoned darts and a blowgun.  You're not answering the question:  If I perceive a threat, am I justified in responding with violence EVEN IF (unknown to me) no threat was intended?
To answer your question, I'm sure the average Iraqi doesn't like him.  But then, he doesn't intend any harm against pro-NAP Iraqis.  By your argument, they have no cause to dislike him. Indeed those who were persecuted under Hussein's rule might even have cause to welcome him.

Do any pro/anti NAPsters wish to propose themselves as the rep?

Good points. I suppose the ideal situation would be to discuss how a NAP society might best function long after the transition had taken place. Assuming we actually got that far, we could then move to establish how best to achieve a smooth transition.  If both sides pick good debaters, then I would guess that we won't even get that far, as a good anti-NAP debater actually debating pro-NAP should be indistinguishable from a bona-fide pro-NAP debater, and vice-versa.  Therefore the debate should seem identical to the extant NAP debates which, unless I'm mistaken, have never ended with a bilateral consensus.

Yes, you are correct, I wish to see a debate about the merits or drawbacks of a society which uses only the NAP as a guiding principle.  I do not wish to debate the NAP in this thread, merely talk about a NAP debate.  Like a meta-NAP thread.  Let's talk about talking about the NAP.

I'd ask who arbitrates when defense companies differ but we've been there before.   But, I'm glad you agree, NAP is not suitable for a bigoted society in which some persecuted minority wishes to peaceably live.  Now, the question is, is there any society (let's say, "country") where that is NOT the case?

Sorry, no I hadn't missed it, it slipped my mind. So a slave need merely request assistance and, in your words, "it will be granted".  Is that *guaranteed*?  Suppose a sex-slave says "help, get me out of here" to one of her pimp's clients?  But, more simply, until such a time as some wealthy and powerful philanthropic entity decides to eliminate slavery for no benefit of its own, a NAP society will tolerate slavery; again in the sense that it will not actively eliminate it. True or false?

1. No bills to pay if you hit-n-run.  See 3.
2. Yes they are tracked down thanks to a national obligatory system of registered license plates, paint layer patterns, national and international police forces and forensic departments, etc etc etc.  Without all this taxation-funded policing, the number of hit-n-runs could only increase.
3. Well if someone does a hit-n-run, they'll certainly be well disposed to pay more for repairs.  After all they'll be saving by not paying for insurance - it's merely sufficient for the shady garage repairs to cost less than the insurance for it to be economically rational for an individual to avoid insurance, to hit-n-run, and to go to shady garages for repairs.  And the repairs WILL cost less than the insurance, on average, simply because they will not have to pay compensation to victims.

Is that your opinion?  Or is that somehow, like Moonshadow thought, a non-arbitrary definition?  Just to be clear: I disagree, so what you say can only be your opinion. I genuinely would be scared shitless if I saw some random stranger walking down the road carrying an A.A.R.  I would *very definitely* consider it a direct threat to my safety, and would *very definitely* hit him very hard over the head with an iron bar if I thought I could do so safely.  I would then disarm him, and confiscate or destroy the weapons.  How exactly is this not consistent with the NAP, given that I genuinely perceive a threat to my safety?

Well, I happened to be debating religion, atheism, agnosticism with a religious friend a while ago.  I remembered something I learned in debating classes a while ago which is, in a real debate, you do not necessarily hold the views you are debating for.  So I challenged my friend to swap sides and debate the pro-atheism case while I debated pro-religion. It was very interesting, and both of us learned something.

So I propose that the pro-NAP members elect one (or at most two) representatives who will debate AGAINST NAP, while the anti-NAP people will choose one or two representatives who will debate FOR NAP.  All chosen debaters of the discussion will be honor-bound to debate as effectively, elegantly, persuasively AND correctly as they can and NEVER NEVER within that thread post any message against their assigned side of the debate.

I personally would love to hold the honor of being one of the anti-NAP reps (and therefore debating pro-NAP), but I'm only intermittently online and there are many far better anti-NAPsters than me on this forum.

This raises a question for Theymos - is it possible for SMF to restrict a thread to just certain members?  It would be most unfortunate if something enlightening came of the discussion but the message got lost in the noise. If not we'll just have to precede each message with a header that goes something like: "Please do not reply here - to discuss this thread please post here [link to another discussion thread]" and ask the mods to remove any unwanted posts.

What do ye think?  Is it a good idea?

I read it. "A & B, in conflict, choose C & D to select E who decides." You still can't see the problem. Forget it.

Correct. Are defense companies somehow impervious to one another? When RedDefense moves to violence against a subscriber of BrownDefense who has aggressed a RedHead, who defends RedDefense from (the much stronger) BrownDefense who will, of course, want to demonstrate how willing they are to defend their clientele.  REMEMBER, the society is bigoted and prejudiced against redheads; the brownheads would clap and cheer at the sight of redheads and redhead-lovers being burned at the stake or driven from society.

Well, that's not really free market forces at work there, is it?  That's human compassion - the defense companies who, out of compassion, won't do business with the (wealthy) pimp, and the defense companies who, at their own expense, out of compassion and even against the wishes of their single male clients, will rescue the sex-slaves.  Try to explain with purely rational economic arguments, how purely economic forces in a purely free market will liberate slaves who have utterly no economic or pyhsical/military power.  Human compassion is not economically productive - that's why there are sweatshops, they *are* economically productive.  If you eliminate regulation of sweatshops and institute a market which heavily relies on compassion, the sweatshops will enormously multiply.  Then when you have explained that, please explain why private defense companies, or wealthy philanthropists, or popular social movements have not worked together to eliminate slavery in the admittedly many cases where government regulation and violence has indeed proved itself inadequate.

You didn't see the "[/sarcasm]", did you?  You are assuming: 1. All drivers will care about pedestrians and pay for insurance.  2. All drivers will not hit-n-run. 3. All garage mechanics will refuse to repair damaged cars unless the owner can somehow prove that any victims of the incident have been adequately compensated (and that has to be ALL garage mechanics - even a single shady dealer will make a fortune from all the people desperate to replace their damaged fenders/bumpers).
Correct me: are these your assumptions?

I notice you avoided the question of automatic assault rifles with glaring subtlety.

Because libertarians think the right to possess "private property" is written in the stars - if you think "all property is theft" then your opinion goes against what is written in the stars and your opinion is somehow... fundamentally... universally... wrong.  If, as a NAPster, you happen to disagree with the fundamental tenets of libertarianism, then you're out of luck. In fact, if you're anyone, and you happen to disagree with the geographically prevailing opinions of what is right or wrong, you're out of luck.

See how Myrul replied to me: he says if two conflicting parties can't agree to a court of arbitration, then they resolve their conflict by agreeing to a court of arbitration.  Silly me, why didn't I think of that huh. [/sarcasm].  In case you can't believe someone could be so self-contradictory in a single sentence, here's the quote:
Myrkul, I actually wrote out a reply to this, but then erased it. See if you can figure out what my reply might have been, and then reply to it please. Then see how the discussion is going and do another iteration. If you still can't see the problem, then forget it.


Who caters to the defense of RedDefense, in a city where 90% of the people (including the big, muscular, well-armed and well-funded staff of BrownDefense, BlackDefense and BlondDefense) are prejudiced against red hair?

I understand, of course - it's difficult to think of all possibilities. So, what you're saying is, all a pretty slave needs is enough freedom, by running away perhaps, to get out of her shackles and find enough money to pay a defense contractor who will beat up her pimp and his defense contractor; until then the NAP society will accept slavery in the sense that it will do nothing to stop it?

Because suddenly, all drivers will voluntarily pay money to protect other random people, any driver colliding with a pedestrian will not do a hit-n-run, and all garage mechanics will voluntarily sign up to an ethical code of conduct and refuse to do business with, or accept money from, anyone who arrives with a suspicious pedestrian-shaped hole in their car? [/sarcasm]  [or... maybe... unslash-sarcasm... that *is* what the pro-NAPs think would happen?]

This completely ignores the fact that, for some people, there will be no fear of reprisal, and that's implicit, if not explicit, in the system I described.

Can anyone answer my question above regarding Moonshadow's post?  Briefly: Moonshadow thinks it's ok for people to walk around with automatic assault rifles.  Suppose another pro-NAP individual perceived this as an immediate threat of violence.  Would he be justified in immediately, violently, defending himself against Moonshadow? The presumption is that they happen to encounter each other under circumstances in which automatic assault rifles are neither explicitly permitted nor banned - there are no rules regarding them.

A last question for the NAPsters - I'm sure it must seem to you that I'm as stubborn and/or stupid as a bowl of thick porridge and couldn't see the light of libertarianism if it were shining from my own nose; just as you seem to me - you couldn't see the inherent problems even if you got sucked right into the black hole of libertarianism.  However, do you feel just as addicted to replying to my stupid posts, as I feel to yours?  I try... I try... I try... to stop replying, and I just can't. [cries]

This is *exactly* what I'm asking too.  Hypothesis: I oppose the NAP and propose instead that there be *no* limitation whatsoever on people's behavior; EVERYBODY is permitted to act aggressively at all times; only instincts of self-preservation will prevent them from doing so. How is this different from the NAP?

In fairness to myrkul, this does sound a bit similar to Freenet's justification - if you like freedom-of-expression use freenet, but don't complain about expressions you don't like. It is not inconsistent, but then I wonder how myrkul would behave when his locality decides that people with red hair may not own property. And before you say that's preposterous, just substitute "locality" for "local defense contractor" and substitute "red hair" for "sunni" or "black".

Slavery has been economically feasible for millenia, and will still be economically feasible for millenia to come, or at least until rubber dolls become more appealing to men than the real thing.

Manufacturing companies will stop installing them in order to cut corners.  Your argument that people's own self-interest will compel them to insist that the manufacturers continue to install seatbelts may be correct, but that argument fails if you consider crumple zones that protect pedestrians in an impact.

I haven't read this, but it seems as though Thoreau referred to a government which enacts a minimum set of laws; not to a geographically minimal government.

So, if no court of arbitration is specified and the two parties cannot agree to one, then who does the deciding?  Who is "we" when not explicitly defined?  Just so you can't avoid answering again, please begin your answer with: "When the court of arbitration is not explicitly defined, and the two parties cannot agree to one, the person(s) doing the deciding shall be: ".  In the event you are unable to define this, then how do you suggest the conflict be resolved?

Sorry, I've been offline for a while. This is a good post, different from the pro- and anti-NAP flame war currently going on.  Yes, cryptoanarcist, perhaps I did.  But then, if NAP is merely a principle, what is its basis?  Is it a principle of morality?  Of utility? Or maybe religious? An economic principle perhaps?  But if it's any of these, then it is necessarily subjective, and hence it is not universal (in the sense not all humans will consider it obviously useful/good/ideal). As such, it cannot possibly form the basis of a society composed of members with different or competing goals, morals, religions, racial features,..... and so on.

---

As for the pro/anti NAP flame war, I would say this: two people (say, A & B, not adhering to the NAP, and with no contract ever formed between them) claim ownership of some property. Here is the debate:
So, tell me, who is the "we" in your reply? And why would the aggressor be the one who moved in?  Perhaps the aggressor might be the one who refuses to move out.  Is NAP really based on such arbitrary 'gut feelings'? Is the "we" you and your friends, me and my friends, or A's friends, or B's friends?  Is it perhaps a committee formed by all the NAP-abiding neighbourhood?  Is it some arbitrary vigilante group?  Assume neither A nor B, not adhering to the NAP, have not hired any defense contractor.  Or, maybe, suppose the land-registry to which A adheres says the property is his, while B's land registry says otherwise.

We've debated on this issue before - NAP is useless at resolving conflicts which are not governed by some contract and for which no court of arbitration is stipulated a priori.  Even worse, since people's interpretation of "violence" is different, then it is completely possible that a meeting between two people, even adhering to NAP, will descend to violence.  See this thread where Moonshadow proposed a non-arbitrary definition of "acceptable weaponry" to which everyone might agree: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg547444#msg547444   I won't quote the message here because it's too long, but suffice it to say that I most emphatically do not agree.  (To cut a long story short I never replied 'cos I was out of town for a while, and the thread grew insanely after that). His definition is just as arbitrary as others previously posted in that thread, so it would be enough for Moonshadow, a NAPster, carrying his automatic assault rifle, to encounter another NAPster who considers possession of such a weapon to be a threat of violence and so two sworn NAPsters end up fighting or shooting in the street.  (for those interested, I suggest reading that thread. It's *very* entertaining, but *very very* long)

This is my last word on the pro/anti NAP debate.  In this thread I really wanted to find out my libertarians adore the NAP so much - why not get rid of it, and let everyone have true liberty.  No satisfactory replies yet, but I see I have about 100 posts to read through.

I'd love nothing better than to have the time to read this, but I don't. I downloaded it, but do you think you could summarise the critical points?

Suppose he thinks its his house? Wouldn't it simply be better to ignore the NAP so at least there's no confusion - possession would equal ownership? Or alternatively introduce a complex legal system with a land registry where the true owner is listed. What exactly does NAP solve in this situation?

Excellent question. I'd say I'm waiting for an answer, but I can tell the response will probably be "you have to think outside the box. Instead of any one group deciding the rules for any other group, each group decides for themselves." The question to ask is whether such a system could actually work or not.

Interesting replies.

You call this bunch of pictures "evidence"? 21 instances of kindness are evidence that people worldwide are willing to help stop the suffering of the poor and weak? Heck, even 21 million wouldn't be enough. Anyway, this is more like appeal-to-emotion than a rational argument. I'm far too lazy to actually look, but I'm pretty sure I could spend a couple of hours and find a equally convincing bunch of pictures that would destroy anyone's faith in humanity.
It's not obvious to me that when you give people back their tax but take away their new expenses (private police, private health care, road construction etc), that people will have more money available for charity. A NAP society is, by definition, each-man-for-himself, and companies will pay minimum wages in order to compete in the market, so I somehow doubt that private charity will increase; but that's just my subjective experience.

nybble41 is wrong. There are two justifications I can give for me to initiate violence against others while they cannot against me.  First, I am stronger. It is only necessary for me to also be clever about never fighting stronger opponents than me, and so I can morally justify being a tyrannical dictator. Second, because I'm hungry, a justification surely inaccessible to the rich capitalist. If nybble41's argument required justification for initiation of violence to be symmetrical between two parties, then it fails.

Ah, so therefore there is no basis for the NAP? It is merely an axiom? Well, it's validity is certainly not obvious to me nor, I suspect, to many other forum members. It cannot therefore be an axiom.

Fancy conducting a poll to establish if the NAP could be an axiom? Let's debate how to propose the poll to our mutual satisfaction. We could agree that if some minimum threshold of replies indicate it is not an axiom then, by definition, it is not an axiom. I would suggest a threshold of 5% or so (for an axiom to be an axiom, it must be obvious to all people). The question might be:

"The only rule in a libertarian society is the Non Agression Pact, NAP, which states: "Do not initiate violence or fraud." Should we try to justify this on logical, economic, moral or ethical grounds (or other grounds, comment below), or is it so obviously valid and practical that it requires no a priori justification? (practical in the sense that it could work in a modern, large, multi-cultural, highly mobile society)."  The options might be:

1. The NAP requires no justification. It is obviously a valid and practical principle by which humanity could live contentedly.
2. I have doubts about the validity of the NAP. It is not obviously a valid and practical principle by which humanity could live contentedly.

I think more-or-less everyone on this forum would agree that the current western paradigm of government is a farce which gives sweeping powers and immunity to those who best abuse it. I hope you can at least agree that OP's proposal is a step forward.

Your post suggests you are pro-libretarian. What would your first step be towards returning power to the people? I mean your first step, so please don't reply and say "implement the NAP".  That would be the last step.

You seem so convinced about this business of charity. Given our society as we know it, what basis do you have for such a... such a.... such a belief in human philanthropy? (I scorn belief. Present your evidence, and I will accordingly accept or reject your hypothesis.)

Saying the NAP's morality is in it's own wording is like saying the bible is a sacred book because the bible says so. If you agree with the NAP, great, then you are morally obliged to agree with it. If you *don't* agree with the NAP, then there is no moral obligation to do so. What I'm asking you for is: on what grounds should people *choose* to adhere to the NAP? Why should no person have the right, a priori, to initiate force or fraud against another?  Again, in both directions - a society that abrogates all but one law, can freely choose to abrogate also the NAP, just as an anarchic society that chooses to create one law, can freely choose to create also others. Why stop at just one law? If NAP's morality is only self-referential, then there is no reason to initially select it. As in the thread title, I ask again: "What's so special about the NAP?", though given that it's only enforcement is self defence, then I could also ask "What's so useful about the NAP?".

You need to implement a secure online voting system. Look up CommitCoin, a voting protocol based on bitcoins. Get that working and widespread, and suddenly political representatives will become more-or-less obsolete.

Suppose a person is unable or unwilling to defend themselves. How is the NAP enforced then? I'm sure that generations of libertarian philosophers have a better response than simply 'self defence'. And, if, to my disgust, that really is the ultimate basis for libertarianism, then why bother with the NAP at all? Everyone has to go around armed to the teeth anyway so what use is it?

Whose moral grounds? Yours? Please state specifically which moral grounding NAP is based on - but remember that for it to work, then ALL members of the lib. society in question must subscribe to that moral structure.

I was under the impression that moral absolutism had been more-or-less universally rejected by philosophers the world over; with the exception of, e.g., religious philosophers who have an interest in promulgating an absolutism created by an eternal and unchanging God. Though, even there, the absolutism changes with time - I remember when one couldn't eat meat on Friday. Once upon a time lending money at interest was immoral, as was getting a divorce. Once upon a time homosexual acts were considered perfectly normal, as was interracial marriage. How about pre-marital sex? The list goes on.

I'm not a philosopher by profession (unfortunately), so perhaps someone more educated than me could provide better evidence that moral absolutism has been conclusively rejected.

There are, one must accept, social groups which probably do behave, within the group, more according to a NAP than anything else. Quakers, for example, though I have no direct experience. Mormons aswell perhaps? Primitive tribes? Inner city streetgangs or mobs? Mafia organisations? Help me out here folks. The problems are two: firstly in such a social group, something as formal as a NAP is unnecessary because members will naturally cooperate for mutual benefit; secondly, where two such social groups interact, you'd need an external authority to reconcile their differing moral values or a bloodbath would ensue.

Folks, this thread has turned into a pro-NAP anti-NAP flame war, something I wasn't intending with the OP. My question was specifically asking why libertarians like the NAP so much - forum rules state that we should preferably remain on-topic.

So, I wish to consider a society with the maximum freedom, where even the NAP is eliminated. There is no social contract which obliges people not to initiate violence. Now, if anyone *does* go around being violent, they'll eventually meet their match, and so violent people will be eventually eliminated, right? Of course, since there are no restrictions, then all people retain the right to self-defence.

Someone in this thread said something like "NAP is a natural law". Well, I have to say, but that's flat out incorrect. Humanity's natural state, as a caveman, was full of violence - fighting for food, for mates, for survival, of one's self and one's offspring would have been a typical day out.

Someone else asked, and this was interesting, that if, in a libertarian society, there is no authority which can enforce the NAP, then does the NAP really exist? I mean, if I have to assume that any random stranger I meet might initiate violence, then I'll surely have to be constantly ready to defend myself, and the NAP's utility approaches zero. Of course, the NAP would apply when I meet people, for example, with whom I regularly trade. But then, well, if I regularly trade with them, then I won't really need a NAP now, will I?

So: Why The NAP?

It can't be to increase productivity and efficiency for a society, 'cos otherwise you could justify a law saying, 'no loud music after 11pm', so that everyone can sleep better (or any other similar example).

It can't be on moral grounds - all morality is relative (I hope this is not in dispute).

It can't be on utilitarian grounds - same applies as with the loud music after 11pm.

So what's so special about the NAP?  Given that it's unenforceable, which calls it's very existence into question, and there appear to be no convincing grounds on which to apply it, then why have it at all?  Eliminate the damn NAP, and go for a *truly* free society.

[Just to be clear, I am largely anti-libertarian. I think a lib. society could function for a small group of, at most, a few thousand people; bigger than that and members' honesty and loyalty will take second place to personal greed and self-preservation instincts. That's my opinion.]